What are your opinions on some economists saying a strong federal work force is key to economic recovery?

And, would federal belt-tightening really worsen our problems - is bigger government really the answer?

WASHINGTON – The economic downturn has forced private industry and state and local government to shed jobs, but one major employer in the country is hiring: The federal government.

While the nation's 11 million unemployed and the millions more who fear losing their jobs may feel Washington should streamline too, economists say a strong federal work force is key to economic recovery. Were President Barack Obama to put any of the nearly 2 million federal civil servants out in the street in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, the consequences could be dire.

"Federal belt-tightening would worsen the problem right now," said Kevin Hassett, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. "Most economists agree that the federal government is a built-in stabilizer," said Hassett, a former adviser to GOP presidential campaigns.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090202/ap_on_go_ot/fe...

14 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I would like to see their logic on this one. Federal employees get their pay from tax payers. They are basically saying since the private sector is giving us less of a tax base, we should expand the government that gets it's money from the taxpayers. I do not see any logic in this approach. That is like me saying my pay is getting cut so I should go spend more money.

    Government is rarely the solution to the problem, government is usually the problem.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I would have to agree, simply because putting more unemployed out in the street at this point would make things seem ever all the more worse at the grass roots level...

    So that would only create more chaos & panic...

    The end result would be less spending & less turnaround

    With all these people out of work, there is less money being re- introduced into the economy, as they support the other jobs... they purchase other services... they spend more money into the economy, by having their jobs... but by losing their jobs & cutting back... then there is that much less money going back into the local economy

    & Whatever job you work for or whoever supports your job is more likely to go broke or be forced to make cutbacks...

    If people have needs, but do not have money... the economy suffers & people go without their needs being met.

    It's sort of like the people coming to Joseph during the great famine & spending all their money then they said, now the money fails, why should we perish... so Joseph sells them for their land... etc.

    But when the money fails in our economy... do we barter or trade or do we simply have nothing & receive nothing... when the money fails, our economy stops.

    We may have laborers, we may have the ability to produce plenty of food, we may have plenty of homes...

    But those homes go un filled & sit empty

    the food sits & spoils

    The laborers go jobless.

    We have every resource more plentifully than any other time or place in history... knowledge, education, food, houses, laborers, etc...

    but we go without simply because the money fails.

    WE are tightwads.

    As a community, we do not value real life people, we only value wealth... If that could be restructured, the rich would be less rich, those with savings would have less savings, but the poor would profit.

    & we don't want the poor to profit.

    Problem is, at some point it catches up to us & we fall into the category of the poor.

    To slow that, we need those who are making money to spend money to support us at the bottom of the rung.

    Or we need to demand reorganization as a whole community.

    Despite what it will do to the rich, the savings, the poor, the value of the dollar, etc.

    & we need to allow ourselves to breath... since we can't do that , then we need to keep the jobs going that are the built in "automatic stabilizers"

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    These economists saying "a strong federal work force is key to economic recovery" are dead wrong. Our federal workforce is far too large and is the main reason the U.S. is declining today. There is now far too much bureaucracy crowded layer upon layer that keeps any good programs from coming to fruition. The federal government is immobilized by tight gridlock.

    Federal Workforce = Socialism

    What the U.S. needs most is a strong citizen workforce with minimum U.S. government interference. The States Rights should be returned to the individual states with the countries' tax allocation going back to the states in accordance with the amount of federal taxes paid by each state. I need to deal with our own problems at the grassroots level.

    Citizen Workforce = Free democratic Americans

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    No , it is not the key . Taking more tax from the middle class to pay for unproductive and wasteful government is not the answer . The answer is cutting taxes on all business , corporations and individuals and loaning money to small businesses and large companies that want to expand .

    We also need to protect our auto industry like other countries do by placing an internal federal tax on vehicles not assembled within our borders from parts that originated here in the U.S..

    A larger federal government will slowly destroy our production and dynamic ability of future prosperity .

    Our government should be spending money on hiring contractors to build more nuclear power plants to fuel electric cars , trains , and home heating that will reduce our exposure to high priced imported oil .

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    in the 30's my grandfather worked in the federal workers program and he said it improved the local economy very much but he still thinks the major industrial build up that occurred because of the war that began agiainst the Japanese.

    The problem these days is the government is in an infinite revolving debt and with no domestic manufacturing to rake in more capital in foreign currency it's severely reducing the amount of taxable income . At he rate that our money gets sent elsewhere I expect that this boom bust economy will continue to do just that. After we get out of this recession then we'll probably gor 8 -12 years and we'll fall into a recession again.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    The foundational assumptions are discredit by current economic facts. Companies are setting on record amounts of liquid capital and yet investors are not investing? The looming fiscal cliff is a extreme cut back of public sector spending and is not regarded with enthusiasm. The alleged "benefits" are already available in current economic climates. But those benefits are not beneficial to those that live in the reality of wage earning. Economist supporting the Romney plan seem to think that it is a zero sum game with regards to wage compensation and labor paradigms. Some how it is unthinkable to reasonably compensate labor in wages and divide total labor demand rationally amongst labor supply. Capitalism is the conjecture that labor creates wealth. Conservatism is the delusion that the rich are responsible for job creation rather than supply and demand logistics.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • ZepOne
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    I would disagree that Washington is a better allocator of resources than individuals. Not saying that individuals are perfect, but putting the allocation of resources into a few hands is much less perfect than putting it into many hands.

    I think the "some economists" who believe that have hidden political idealogies and see a bad economy as an opportunity to strengthen the position of their idealogy.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    the cause of the current economic crisis is financial, so the thing we have to do now is to solve that problem first. I heard that some countries decided to nationalize the key banks to keep them healthy.

    At this moment it is a good first step to cope with the crisis, i think. it is because by making them nationalized the goverment can handle the things more agressively at their own will.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I'm tired of trying to figure it out! We have one group who says this, another group says that, and yet another group says something else. Mostly, though, my own common sense goes in an entirely different direction and somehow it just makes sense that all of these groups have some kind of agenda that really doesn't give two hoots about America. I arrive at most of my conclusions by watching ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN because if they think it's good for America, I know it just got to be bad for Americans. ...and I act accordingly.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • SDD
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    If you assume that the activities that the federal government performs are economically more productive than those from whom it takes resources, that would be a good thing. History does not support that assumption, however.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.